Yeah, I’m not at all going to take a 1-game sample size on the road on MNF as a trend.
Sure, you don't have to at all. I mean you're allowed to distinguish it from another game as is your wont. But I'd ask what evidence do you have that they're going play like they played when they had Kirk Cousins? Or Sam Darnold? I can't think of one thing besides faith and assertions to the contrary. Well, only time will tell. We will see.
The offense they are running is the same offense they ran last season with Darnold. It will just be better because McCarthy is better than Darnold.
Of course that may take some time for the offense to fully gel and find their identity. Every team is different. But if you think the Vikings are going to avoid passing the ball because of McCarthy I think you are wrong and the evidence is KOCs tendencies.
I dont think you know this team well enough to make such a assumption.
Uh, I already accounted for that evidence. I explicitly stated it. I've been following along also. We will see week by week how they play it. RIght now, you're relying on the chicken/farmer fallacy. You have no idea what Kevin O'Connell will do with JJ McCarthy as his QB. It's a problem with inductive logic. It's generally not considered determinative. In fact, it's considered so weak that they won't allow general modus operandi claims in a criminal trial because they're considered potentially erroneous and prejudicial against the defendant.
It stems from the certainty and foundational aspects of that type of argument. It's a bit stickler-ish, but it's generally relied upon in hope and not in certainty.
It's the problem with induction and causation in general.
Problem of Induction
The story of the chicken and the farmer is a well-known illustration of the philosophical problem of induction, a concept first explored by David Hume and later popularized by Bertrand Russell. The chicken, fed every morning by the farmer, observes this pattern repeatedly and uses inductive reasoning to predict that the farmer will always bring food. This belief is based on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, a fundamental principle of inductive logic. However, the chicken's prediction is catastrophically wrong when the farmer, on an unremarkable day, wrings its neck instead of feeding it. This outcome demonstrates the inherent flaw in inductive reasoning: no matter how many times a pattern is observed, it cannot guarantee that the pattern will continue, as a single counterexample can disprove a general rule.
The anecdote highlights that inductive reasoning, while practical and necessary for everyday life, cannot provide logical certainty. The chicken's conclusion that the farmer will always feed it is not logically justified, even though it is supported by extensive empirical evidence. This illustrates Hume's argument that the justification for induction is itself inductive, creating a circular argument that cannot be resolved logically. The chicken's fate serves as a metaphor for the limitations of relying on past experience to predict the future, a problem that extends beyond animal behavior to scientific theories, economic models, and human decision-making. The story underscores the need for a critical approach, such as Karl Popper's concept of falsifiability, where theories must be testable and potentially disprovable, rather than simply supported by confirming instances
